Tuesday, September 25, 2012

We Americans are a pragmatic lot. We distrust authority,
even tradition, and like to try things out for ourselves. We like to see what
works and what doesn’t.

Pragmatism is a good thing, but it can be taken too far. After
all, tradition is just the record of past pragmatic decisions.

Children might distrust authority, but no one wants to see a
child defy tradition and learn for himself what happens when he jumps into an
empty swimming pool.

Recently, many Americans have come to doubt the natural
basis for gender differences. Many of them have mindlessly accepted the notion
that gender differences are socially constructed.

For better or for worse, they have been trying it out at
home. They have reversed gender roles
and created a brave new world where more women are breadwinners and more men
stay home, take care of the children, play golf and cheat on their wives.

Sandra Tsing Loh examines the situation through the lens of Dr. Phil’s question: How’s that working out for you.

In Loh’s view, there’s trouble in this new Paradise:

In
nearly 40 percent of American marriages, the wife earns more than the husband.
Data indicate that this power inversion can trigger not just problems with
gender identity but a troubling amount of male infidelity (peculiar new trend:
women who are financially dependent on their husbands tend to be faithful,
while, para­doxically, financially dependent men tend to stray). One 2010 study
showed that when a woman’s contribution to household income tops
60 percent, the couple is more likely to divorce.

Minor details those.

And then there’s the case of Annette, married breadwinner
with a highly cooperative stay-at-home husband.

Loh offers a somewhat promising introduction to Annette and
her husband, Ron:

Annette
is a working warrioress, a high-level administrator who makes mid–six figures
at a major foundation. She is married to Ron, a writer who decided to stay home
for a few years upon the birth of their twins. In many ways, this division of
responsibilities seemed an ideal fit. Annette is left-brained; Ron is right-brained.
Annette anxiously crunches numbers on her Blackberry; Ron contentedly
chauffeurs the kids while playing world music. He walks their choleric dog and
initiates home projects like (this is hard to describe, but it’s very groovy)
creating a family playroom/art studio out of found and recycled materials.

So far, so good. Loh then shows of how this arrangement
becomes completely undone over a light bulb.

Readers of this blog will notice how well Annette and Ron
make use of all the tools that therapy has provided them to negotiate this
difficult and complex situation:

“So
here’s the thing,” Annette says, wiping her mouth with a cuffed sleeve. “Two
weeks ago, I pull into a dark garage at 7 o’clock—the lightbulb is out. Banging
my shin as I get out of the car, I go to the drawer where the lightbulbs are
supposed to be. It’s filled with paintbrushes and modeling clay. I find Ron in
the kitchen, as usual, cooking a red sauce from scratch when Prego is just as
good. I ask him to take care of it. Second night, I pull in, no lightbulb,
banged shin—he says he’ll replace it. Third night—same thing, same thing, same
thing. And the FOURTH NIGHT???” Annette’s face stretches into such a terrifying
Medusa rictus that we recoil. “I wrench open the kitchen door and start screaming:
‘Oh my GOD, Ron! Either do it or don’t do it, but if you honestly and in fact
have no plans at all to change the lightbulb, JU-U-UST TE-E-ELL ME!’ And Ron is
actually indignant! It’s like I am
the one who is being OUTRAGEOUS and require HIM to give ME a teachable moment.
He’s saying: ‘Look at yourself—why are you so fixated on a lightbulb? That’s
pretty shallow. We’re happy, we’re healthy—but all you see is the lightbulb.
Are you aware of how negative you’ve become? It’s the first thing you radiate
when you step in through the door.’ And it’s like I can’t breathe—I literally
can’t breathe—and I’m saying: ‘It’s not about a lightbulb, it’s that you
PROMISED, over and over again, and I TRUSTED you—which means your word means
NOTHING!’ At which point he says—and he is literally waving the spatula now,
like a king with his scepter—‘If you are so obsessed with the damn
lightbulb—and I’m sorry if I don’t invest my whole EMOTIONAL LIFE in it like
you do, and maybe you should look
at that—WITH GOD AS MY WITNESS, I PROMISE FROM THIS DAY FORWARD YOU WILL
NEVER SEE A BURNED-OUT LIGHTBULB IN THIS HOUSE AGAIN!!!’”

Punch
line: The next night, she pulls into the garage, looks up … at which
point, they begin emergency couple’s therapy....

If therapy has not worked, then, in today’s world, the cure
is more therapy.

Why does this role reversal marriage not work? Loh replies:

Further,
not only do we 2012 women fail at being 1950s wives, we fail even more
spectacularly at being 1950s husbands.

And also:

By
contrast, dwelling in a grayscale midlife pur­gatory of grinding Pilates and
ever-shifting diets (Atkins? Zone? South Beach?), if we breadwinning women were
handed a Manhattan at the end of the day, we’d be likely to burst into tears
and wail, “What’s THIS? What’s IN this? Why are you UNDERMINING me?!”

The real problem, if I may summarize it, is that men,
through no fault of their own, are bad homemakers. They do some of what needs
to be done. They get the children off to school and they might even prepare
meals. But they are not and will never become good homemakers.

So, a woman who is out working to support the family will
never feel that, after a hard day’s work, she is coming home.

Loh quotes Cheryl Mendelson’s book, Home Comforts:

This
sense of being at home is important to everyone’s well-being. If you do not get
enough of it, your happiness, resilience, energy, humor, and courage will
decrease … Being at home feels safe; you have a sense of relief whenever
you come home and close the door behind you … Home is the one place in the
world … where you belong … Coming home is your major restorative in
life. These are formidably good things, which you cannot get merely by finding
true love or getting married or having children or landing the best job in the
world—or even by moving into the house of your dreams.

How does the modern woman deal with this problem? According
to Loh she votes her man off the island. She gets a divorce.

At least, then, she does not have to suffer the pain of
coming home to a situation that screams out that she is neglecting to make a home.

8 comments:

You're approaching the crux of the problem. We are participating, voluntarily and involuntarily, in a massive social experiment, which touches on every part of our lives, including: family, economy, and culture. The outcome has been a progressive dysfunction, which has induced perturbations in everything ranging from biological to societal stability.

Apparently, reason and reasonable have been subordinated by dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, ego), especially when fulfilled without perception of consequences. Perhaps that's why the "therapy culture" developed. It was designed to overcome and deceive "bitter clingers".

Well, with the evidence to failure available, the experiment should have ended. While there is evidence of a correction taking form, there is also visible resistance being mounted from individuals and cooperatives who rebel without cause to maintain the new status quo.

So much for generational progressives, liberals without principles, corrupt conservatives, and libertarians without boundaries. They have all contributed in their own way to our present state of disharmony.

The more one tries to change the nature of things the more one destroys it and themselves. When you seek to deceive the only person you deceive is yourself.If men were meant to be female then they would have been born female. If women were meant to be men then they would have been born male.One has to ask the question, "Why did GOD, Mother Nature, or whatever decide to have two different sexes?" It always seemed to me that two different sexes were meant to aid in the survival of the species. Anything that "messes" with that is counterproductive and a danger to our survival as a species.It does make one wonder if those who keep trying to change what we are hate humanity, but don't have the guts to admit it. Why else would the killing of future generation be such a major point in their tenets. In fact Death seems to predominate their lives.

n.n, it is both. One naturally leads to the other.If one wants to completely control others then one has to take away the ability to see oneself as a good (moral) person.It is somewhat like defeating a country without having to, at first, use violence. First one has to destroy the culture and fundamental precepts that country is based on. Then one has to degrade and create the idea that dysfunctional behavior is the norm and should be celebrated. One makes women into "sluts," and creates the idea that being feminine is something to be avoided. At the same time one has to debase everything that is male and follow that with creating a chasm between men and womenIt follows from that that one only needs to create groups of people who are to be in conflict with and the possess hatred of those outside that group. The hatred completes the circle which leads to the destruction of humanity and the ability of "community agitators" to take total power.

Dennis, is it possible that their conception of "progress" does, in fact, represent something positive? I cannot perceive that as a possible outcome, and, so far, no one has been able to convince me otherwise.

I judge their principles and policy according to a tempered natural order (e.g. classical liberalism tempered by Judeo-Christian principles or American conservatism). A compromise which recognizes individual dignity, intrinsic value of human life, and certain inviolable evolutionary principles.

As for the "community agitators", it is my belief they are of the same order as other agitators, who exploit base human desires and weaknesses in order to advance their own political, economic, and social standing. Perhaps some actually have legitimate good intentions; but, as they address effects, rather than causes, the outcome can only be predicted to be qualitatively negative.

There is another problem which follows from cultural corruption. It obfuscates and even defends corruption in the exception. The latter cannot be addressed until the former is resolved. While the former is generational, the latter can mimic that characteristic. The two forms of corruption will serve to reinforce each other.

It's strange, but as I type this, I can't help but experience a mild cognitive dissonance. I observe; I witness; and it is still surreal. I wonder if this is the state of consciousness experienced by other people, throughout the world, throughout history, as they are forced to participate in an incongruous reality.

As usual, the story reveals itself if one reverses the sexes in the story. So we see a petty tyrant who doesn't pull her share of the housework and, rather than just changing it herself, goes nuts over a lightbulb.

You've come a long way, but even so society should perhaps expect a bit more.

The husband might thus be justified in cleaning out the accounts, changing the locks, getting a restraining order, calling the divorce attorney, and expecting at least half the household assets, along with sole custody, alimony and child support, right? The wife of course gets to pay both parties' legal bills.

A bit late to the party, I'm a stay at home dad of two... a special needs child and an NT child... and I am in the precise situation as the example. And I say -- yes! Total self-absorbed spouse == divorce or poor home life. The same is true of all homes -- whether 1950s or 2010s.